Obama pulling a "fast one" on Abortion in the US health care bill

Fact check on abortion in the health care bill:
The problem: it's the Capp amendment...
The LATimes insists it's a "reasonable compromise" but the US Bishops say it's a ruse, and at least one bluedog Democrat agrees....

ah, but now the Messiah has spoken, and behold,

Zenit News notes:


'Richard Doerflinger, the associate director of the Pro-Life Activities committee, said the president's stated commitment to exclude federal funding for abortion was particularly welcomed, as was his promise to protect conscience rights."
The article goes on with a bishop's spokeswoman insisting that the bishops back health care legislation, essentially backing the President's plan.

and just to emphasize things, their headline reads:

Obama Promise Welcomed: No Tax-Funded Abortion

presumably US taxpayer money going to fund abortions overseas doesn't count...

as for "conscience rights", I seem to remember it was Obama who removed the regulations to protect health care workers...and hasn't gotten around to replacing them nine months later.

But the "Spokeswoman's statement" gives them cover.

HHS secretary Sibeleus (who vetoed bills in Kansas that would ban late term abortion on babies who could live outside the womb) insists:

“In fact recently the Catholic bishops came out, after the President’s statement saying that his statement about what he intends in the plan that no public fund would go to fund abortion and the fact that he has come out firmly for insuring all Americans and saying that it’s a moral issue as well as an economic issue and they endorsed moving forward. I think the legislative language will reflect what the President has just said.”

This again is a Clintonesque spin.

Read it quickly, and you get the idea that the bishops are backing the President (take that, prolife movement).

But her actual words were:

. “In fact recently the Catholic bishops came out, after the President’s statement saying that his statement about what he intends in the plan that no public fund would go to fund abortion and the fact that he has come out firmly for insuring all Americans and saying that it’s a moral issue as well as an economic issue and they endorsed moving forward...

Let's parse that one.

The bishops were approving Obama's statement that no public funding would go to abortion.

The problem?

The word "public".

How would that work with Health care?
Well, the government would put most of the money into the pot, but if you wanted abortion coverage, you would have to add your own money. (say, five dollars a month).

Maybe.

Or else they could argue that since the same insurance plan (which covers abortion) has lots of normal payees, that the abortion part would be paid for by the non government premiums.



From the NYTimes:

The Capps amendment tried to satisfy the current ban on direct federal financing of abortions by requiring that government contributions to either the public plan or the private plans be kept in separate accounts from premiums paid by individuals. Payments for abortions (beyond the current exceptions) would be attributed to the premium pool.

Groups like Planned Parenthood and Naral Pro-Choice America insist that this segregation of money means that abortion would be paid for with “private dollars,” not federal ones. Abortion opponents call this bookkeeping legerdemain.

Taxpayer subsidies and personal premiums, they argue, would be completely commingled in the public plan; a surcharge on premiums to pay for abortions would be billed equally to those wanting abortion coverage and those opposed to it; and federal checks would go directly to abortion providers.

The National Right to LIfe committee is even more blunt:

The latest statements by Mr. Obama and Ms. Sebelius are most likely a continuation of their strategy of denial, evasion, and distortion. We say, watch what they do, not what they say." Full NRLC Release HERE and a letter from Johnson to me HERE.

Also overlooked is this provision. From the Heritage Foundation website:

LINK

Under the House bill, the federal government is authorized to determine what health benefits must be included in Americans’ health insurance plans and federal officials will determine the health plans that would be considered “acceptable” coverage under the law.

In other words, once the bill is passed, the HHS secretary could mandate abortion coverage by fiat as part of "acceptable coverage".

Or, more likely, this would be done via lawsuits before sympathetic judges.

But of course, US Taxpayer money is already funding abortions overseas, but this was called "Removing the gag rule", not paying for and promoting abortion.

And I will cover that in the next essay.